One of the great ironies in the history of Buddhism is the extent to which teachings that the Buddha clearly disapproved of, such as this one, have later been taught as quintessentially Buddhist. In some circles, a teaching similar to this one — that non-reactivity to pain burns away the impurity of past kamma and creates no new kamma for the future — is still taught as Buddhist to this day.

can anyone put this in context with this discussion?

They're talking about various forms of painful asceticism that the Jains were known to partake in, in an attempt to expunge "impure" karma. They did/do stuff like intentionally sunburn themselves, starve themselves to near death (if they're lucky), lay on beds of nails, hold painful yoga postures, that kind of thing. It would probably be the exact opposite of the "living in sensuality" of the householder, but not in a good (skillful) way.

santa100 wrote:The Miln. and Comy. simply elaborate and clarify what He already said.

I guess I'm more okay with the idea that householders can't progress beyond a certain level than the idea that if they should somehow pull it off while living in a household, that they will die within 24 hours. I think I would need more examples of the Buddha saying anything close to the latter in order to be willing to accept that one.

One of the great ironies in the history of Buddhism is the extent to which teachings that the Buddha clearly disapproved of, such as this one, have later been taught as quintessentially Buddhist. In some circles, a teaching similar to this one — that non-reactivity to pain burns away the impurity of past kamma and creates no new kamma for the future — is still taught as Buddhist to this day.

can anyone put this in context with this discussion?

This is the second important point the Buddha wanted us to see in the sutta. The first point was that sensual indulgence is one extreme that a practitioner needs to watch out for. The other extreme that is just as dangerous is the painful austerities done by followers of the Nigantha Nataputta whose practice was decribed as:

..it's not the case that pleasure is to be attained through pleasure. Pleasure is to be attained through pain;...practicing continuous standing: rejecting seats, experiencing fierce, sharp, racking pains due to exertion.

The middle path the Buddha pointed out was the joy and happiness of meditation, which is free from the extremes of sensual desires and of painful self mortification.

One of the great ironies in the history of Buddhism is the extent to which teachings that the Buddha clearly disapproved of, such as this one, have later been taught as quintessentially Buddhist. In some circles, a teaching similar to this one — that non-reactivity to pain burns away the impurity of past kamma and creates no new kamma for the future — is still taught as Buddhist to this day.

can anyone put this in context with this discussion?

They're talking about various forms of painful asceticism that the Jains were known to partake in, in an attempt to expunge "impure" karma. They did/do stuff like intentionally sunburn themselves, starve themselves to near death (if they're lucky), lay on beds of nails, hold painful yoga postures, that kind of thing. It would probably be the exact opposite of the "living in sensuality" of the householder, but not in a good (skillful) way.

So, are the Jains an integral part of Buddhism... do their practices extend to Mahayana, zen, etc. Not to my knowledge. Is there a record of how effective these techniques are when the Buddha himself rejects them. It is their practice, fine, it is one system. It is actually the logical conclusion if once analyzes the practices involved.... but

Does anyone actually believe this is necessary in 2014? There are many accounts of awakened householders. And, the world is waking up without extreme practices like this. How can one possibly subscribe to this text. No one has presented any balance to this perspective.... am I missing something here?

Sorry, my opinion at this point, is that the world needs ppl to engage... those who choose a bed of nails, who need to separate themselves from life whether it be in a monastary or home life, are not willing to meet life full on with all it's trials and sorrow, temptations and joys. It is a fierce practice, it's not easy. Yet, it's so simple and elegant at the same time. And, I have to wonder who still thinks about their own personal achievement in such times. they are a'changing and we all have only ourselves to offer, just as we are.

Do anyone believe on faith in 2000 year old words that were written in a particular time and cultural setting as if they have relevance today. Buddha's message, loud and clear, is to be a lamp unto oneself.... precisely why he held up the flower.

PorkChop wrote:I guess I'm more okay with the idea that householders can't progress beyond a certain level than the idea that if they should somehow pull it off while living in a household, that they will die within 24 hours. I think I would need more examples of the Buddha saying anything close to the latter in order to be willing to accept that one.

The case of Yasa Thera in Vinaya.i.15; DhA.i.72 supports the explanation of Miln III.19 ("if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attain parinibbàna"):

Dictionary of Pali Proper Name wrote:..At the end of the sermon he (Yasa) acknowledged himself the Buddha's follower, (he thus became the first tevācika upāsaka) and Yasa, who had been listening, became an arahant. When, therefore, Yasa's presence became known to his father, who asked him to return to his grieving mother, the Buddha declared that household life had no attractions for Yasa and granted his request to be admitted to the Order.

Lindama wrote:Does anyone actually believe this is necessary in 2014? There are many accounts of awakened householders. And, the world is waking up without extreme practices like this. How can one possibly subscribe to this text. No one has presented any balance to this perspective.... am I missing something here?

Uh...did you read my last post and PorkChop's post? The Buddha did present a great balance to the perspective. As a result, I do believe His teaching is more necessary now than ever before for our life in 2014 has been way "out of balance", a lot more than folks back in His time.

One of the great ironies in the history of Buddhism is the extent to which teachings that the Buddha clearly disapproved of, such as this one, have later been taught as quintessentially Buddhist. In some circles, a teaching similar to this one — that non-reactivity to pain burns away the im purity of past kamma and creates no new kamma for the future — is still taught as Buddhist to this day.

can anyone put this in context with this discussion?

It refers to the way Niganthas practiced. Although it was disapproved by Buddha, many taught it as the core of Buddhist. This sutta disapproves such practice. It was not necessary back then, and is not necessary in 2014. The whole text perfectly fits our times.

oushi wrote:In the second part, he presents his current state as constant pleasure, or a state capable of such joy. This is comforting, but how is it, that sensuality is the source of suffering, and pleasure is not? Like this pleasure he is talking about, is not a sensual pleasure.

I would say "unalloyed" pleasure as in pleasure that is not dependent on things that arise and pass away. A pleasure that naturally arises by itself as a result of no longer needing to experience, or avoid experiencing, some temporary sensation.

One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

oushi wrote:In the second part, he presents his current state as constant pleasure, or a state capable of such joy. This is comforting, but how is it, that sensuality is the source of suffering, and pleasure is not? Like this pleasure he is talking about, is not a sensual pleasure.

I would say "unalloyed" pleasure as in pleasure that is not dependent on things that arise and pass away. A pleasure that naturally arises by itself as a result of no longer needing to experience, or avoid experiencing, some temporary sensation.

That would mean that it, "unalloyed" pleasure, arises as passing away of the need to experience, and that makes its arising dependent. That implies, that "unalloyed" pleasure is not always there, covered by the need to experience. Rather, it arises when the need to experience cases. I see it as "something" that is pulled out of its comfort by the need to experience, and when this need/desire/intention cases, it returns back to its natural state, which is "unalloyed" pleasure. What might be interesting, our intentional effort is nothing but a way to provide conditions for this "unalloyed" pleasure in future, which disturbs it in the now. In other words, we destroy this pleasure, because we want it to arise in the future. That is ignorance, based on hope and fear.

Last edited by oushi on Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

PorkChop wrote:I guess I'm more okay with the idea that householders can't progress beyond a certain level than the idea that if they should somehow pull it off while living in a household, that they will die within 24 hours. I think I would need more examples of the Buddha saying anything close to the latter in order to be willing to accept that one.

The case of Yasa Thera in Vinaya.i.15; DhA.i.72 supports the explanation of Miln III.19 ("if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attain parinibbàna"):

Dictionary of Pali Proper Name wrote:..At the end of the sermon he (Yasa) acknowledged himself the Buddha's follower, (he thus became the first tevācika upāsaka) and Yasa, who had been listening, became an arahant. When, therefore, Yasa's presence became known to his father, who asked him to return to his grieving mother, the Buddha declared that household life had no attractions for Yasa and granted his request to be admitted to the Order.

Still doesn't say he died if he didn't get the requisite bowl, cloth, and ordain in the required 24 hours.In fact, after ordaining, he goes back home to eat a meal and preach to mom the next day.

PorkChop wrote:Still doesn't say he died if he didn't get the requisite bowl, cloth, and ordain in the required 24 hours.In fact, after ordaining, he goes back home to eat a meal and preach to mom the next day.

So? What's wrong with eating a meal and preaching to people? He was already part of the Order on the Buddha's permission:

..Yasa's presence became known to his father, who asked him to return to his grieving mother, the Buddha declared that household life had no attractions for Yasa and granted his request to be admitted to the Order.

Last edited by santa100 on Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PorkChop wrote:Still doesn't say he died if he didn't get the requisite bowl, cloth, and ordain in the required 24 hours.In fact, after ordaining, he goes back home to eat a meal and preach to mom the next day.

So? What's wrong with eating a meal and preaching to people? He already was part of the Order on the Buddha's permission:

..Yasa's presence became known to his father, who asked him to return to his grieving mother, the Buddha declared that household life had no attractions for Yasa and granted his request to be admitted to the Order.

Yeah but you're missing the whole point that it does not say he is going to die in 24 hours if he does not undergo a ritual. That's the part I take issue with. Especially if it's a requirement of even "lowly" Sotapannas to give up reliance on rites & rituals.

EDIT: The fact that he was eating with his family & preaching to them the very next day is extremely relevant. It shows that there was nothing inherent to the mere environment of a household that would cause this death.

PorkChop wrote:Yeah but you're missing the whole point that it does not say he is going to die in 24 hours if he does not undergo a ritual. That's the part I take issue with. Especially if it's a requirement of even "lowly" Sotapannas to give up reliance on rites & rituals.

EDIT: The fact that he was eating with his family & preaching to them the very next day is extremely relevant. It shows that there was nothing inherent to the mere environment of a household that would cause this death.

Well, please cite the source that describes the exact ritual procedures one has to take. Else, I'd say the words of approval spoken by the Buddha is the greatest "ritual" it can be.

It's not the eating or the preaching. It's what role the venerable was in while doing that: as a son? or as an arahant already part of the Order as authorized by the Buddha's own words? The fact that he was eating and preaching has no relevance here. The Buddha ate and preached at His royal family many times, was that a problem?

santa100 wrote:Well, please cite the source that describes the exact ritual procedures one has to take. Else, I'd say the words of approval spoken by the Buddha is the greatest "ritual" it can be.

I dunno, maybe read the vinaya and the whole "going forth with the robe and bowl" thing.

santa100 wrote:It's not the eating or the preaching. It's what role the venerable was in while doing that: as a son? or as an arahant already part of the Order as authorized by the Buddha's own words? The fact that he was eating and preaching has no relevance here. The Buddha ate and preached at His royal family many times, was that a problem?

So as soon as someone relinquishes their role as a householder, then they're safe from the whole "24 hours and you die" thing? Gotcha....

santa100 wrote:Yeah, the Yasa account and the Miln. seem to agree on that..

Well I can understand that a bit more then, because by the time one has become an Arahant, all such mental formations about oneself such as one's role would have been seen as empty (not self). In that sense, the "householder" would be dead because "I am" making would have ceased and there would be no "householder" left to kill.